Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"CVC instructions issued on 29.6.1999 provide as under:-
"2. One of the facts of the life in today‟s administration is the widespread use of anonymous and pseudonymous petitions by the disgruntled elements to blackmail honest officials. Under the existing orders, issues by the Department of Personnel & Training letter No.321/4/91-Advocate.III dt. 29.9.92, no action should be taken on anonymous and pseudonymous complaints and should be ignores and only filed. However, there is a provision available in this order that in case such complaints contain verifiable details, they may be enquired into in accordance with existing instructions. It is, however, seen that the exception provided in this order has become a convenient loophole for blackmailing. The public servants who receive the anonymous/pseudonymous complaints, generally, generally follow the path of least resistance and order inquiries on these complaints. A peculiar feature of these complaints is that these are resorted to especially when a public servant‟s promotion is due or when an executive is likely to be called by the Public Enterprises Selection Board for interview for a post of Director/CMD etc. if nothing else, the anonymous/pseudonymous achieves the objective of delaying the promotion if not denying the promotion. These complaints demoralize many honest public servants."

13. Also the instructions issued on 18.1.2006 by the Director General of Vigilance in Customs and Central Excise decide as under:

"3. Instances have also come to notice that the anonymous/pseudonymous complaints are entertained at the field formations/various levels to harass the officers. In this regard, CVC advised that al officer/authorities concerned should adhere, strictly to the instructions in vogue relating to anonymous/pseudonymous complaints."
(f) These complaints demoralize many honest public servants. The CVC has itself stated that most of these complaints are entertained at various levels to harass the officers.

12. The message behind the aforesaid instructions is loud and clear.

Normal rule is not to entertain such pseudonymous/innocuous complaints. Only in exceptional cases where verifiable details are found, further action should be taken. This explanation has to be treated as only an explanation and not to take the place of the normal rule, which would mean that only in very exceptional circumstances, on such pseudonymous/innocuous complaints wherein some justification is found after verification, that those be entertained. One has to be particularly circumspect when such complaints are received at a time when a public servant is due for promotion. Commenting upon these instructions of the CVC, the High Court of Madras in the case of P.M. Ramalingam v. The Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force (WP Nos. 11543-544/2000 decided on 26.9.2003) observed as under :-

We are, therefore, of the opinion that it was not such a serious matter and would hardly come within the expression „misconduct‟ warranting initiation of inquiry on pseudonymous complaint.

19. Most relevant factor in the present case is that though the pseudonymous complaint is dated 7.7.2005, charge sheet came to be issued on 10.5.2007. In the interregnum. a very important and significant event had taken place insofar as the respondent is concerned. The DPC for promotion of the respondent as Chief Commissioner of Central Excise was held on 21.3.2007. The respondent was considered and found fit for promotion. The ACC also approved this promotion. As on that date, there was nothing against the respondent as no charge memo was issued by that time. In normal course, such promotion should have been given effect to. However, after serving the charge memo on 10.5.2007, the aforesaid result of the DPC was placed in „Deemed Seal Cover‟. This is a curious way of dealing with the respondent. Obvious motive was to deny the promotion to the respondent even when he rightfully and legitimately earned the same. No such procedure of „Deemed Seal Cover‟ was permissible under the law. All this throw reasonable suspicion in the mind that belated action and that too on a pseudonymous complaint was timed when the respondent became entitled to get promotion. Apprehension expressed by the CVC in the aforesaid circulars on pseudonymous complaint becomes manifest in the present case. All the juniors of the respondent were promoted on the basis of DPC held in March 2007. For two years the respondent is struggling to get his promotion. The promotion, otherwise rightly earned by him, is denied to him by issuing charge sheet at this stage trying to somehow implicate the respondent with alleged irregularities which do not even constitute „misconduct‟. In this backdrop, we find justification in the following observations of the Tribunal in the impugned judgment :-